Herein lies part of my problem. The Orthodox have valid Sacraments. That means they have the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, correct? To me, that is the fullness of the faith. Since they have valid sacraments, would I jepordize my salvation by becoming Orthodox? How so? If not, then in a way, it does come down to what is more comfortable. I feel more at home with Divine Liturgy, icons, etc. From what I've read so far, it seems I agree more with the Orthodox beliefs on things. They have the Apostolic faith too. They have great Saints too. They have apparitions in the form of weeping icons as well.So, I am confused.

***I hope anyone reading this will go easy on me as I am still learning, so if I have made errors, I apologize.

The whole point of being Roman Catholic is being under the Pope. Simple!

All things are negotiable except being subject to Rome which isnt negotiable.

If you were to ask a Roman Catholic who is hip on ecumenism and is familiar with east west relationships whether we have all this fullnesses of faith in our sacraments, succession of bishops, ancient Liturgies, and the like they will still insist that fullness is NOT all of these things but fullness is being under the authority of the Pope. This simple doesnt make sense to the average Orthodox Christian. This is a foriegn concept to them. The Eastern church had no proclivity in believing in this all powerful and dominating office of Roman Pontiff, set aside the claims of Infallibility.

A note on reconciliation. Reconciliation isn't only about formal reunion. It's also about mutual love, respect and understanding. That in itself is a worthy goal of ecumenism, worthy of God, even without a formal reunion. I hate triumphalism, and I know God is calling us to grow closer to each other, in spirit at least if communion is not possible right now.

The whole point of being Roman Catholic is being under the Pope. Simple!

All things are negotiable except being subject to Rome which isnt negotiable.

If you were to ask a Roman Catholic who is hip on ecumenism and is familiar with east west relationships whether we have all this fullnesses of faith in our sacraments, succession of bishops, ancient Liturgies, and the like they will still insist that fullness is NOT all of these things but fullness is being under the authority of the Pope. This simple doesnt make sense to the average Orthodox Christian. This is a foriegn concept to them. The Eastern church had no proclivity in believing in this all powerful and dominating office of Roman Pontiff, set aside the claims of Infallibility.

But, But, But, But but, it is the apex of your being in Roman Catholic faith is it not?

You cant have what you all believe and not have the Bishop of Rome being the Infallible and Supreme one can you?

Really, eh? The apex? More important than believing in the Virgin Birth or Christ's divinity? The fullness of faith is to be taken as a whole. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is his Vicar and a sign of the unity of the Church. It isn't entirely or the "apex" of what the Catholic faith is about. The apex of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ.

And please stop throwing around the word "infallible" unless you intend to use it as we Catholics have defined it for the Petrine office. I've always found it tiresome to get beaten over the head by non-Catholics about our "infallible pope."

Really, eh? The apex? More important than believing in the Virgin Birth or Christ's divinity? The fullness of faith is to be taken as a whole. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is his Vicar and a sign of the unity of the Church. It isn't entirely or the "apex" of what the Catholic faith is about. The apex of the Catholic faith is Jesus Christ.

And please stop throwing around the word "infallible" unless you intend to use it as we Catholics have defined it for the Petrine office. I've always found it tiresome to get beaten over the head by non-Catholics about our "infallible pope."

So not having the Pope as one's head is defined as being in the Church?

I cant remember exactly which Pope (post great schism) it was, but this one Pope actually said that he was literally GOD on earth. A little infallibility drum roll please.

St. Catherine of Siena referred to the pope as Sweet Christ on Earth. Could you be thinking of that?

BTW, John Paul II made reference to that "title" as recently as 1996 in the Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata (On the Consecrated Life and its Mission in the Church and the World)

Quote

[...] In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church's life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff. Against this background of love towards Holy Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for "the Lord Pope",the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth",the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola,and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: "I am a daughter of the Church".We can also understand the deep desire of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus: "In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love".

As I understood it the Pope was only the Pope in his observance of Defender of Holy Tradition...

Lubeltri what is your view of this?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I cant remember exactly which Pope (post great schism) it was, but this one Pope actually said that he was literally GOD on earth.

I don't know which pope said that either, but doesn't that just demonstrate what I've been saying? The pope is fallible, i.e. capable of making mistakes. (Some popes have made worse mistakes than others.)

As I understood it the Pope was only the Pope in his observance of Defender of Holy Tradition...

You know, that's interesting. Traditional Catholics insist that all popes up to (and possibly including) Paul VI took a so-called Papal Coronation Oath. There is, however, no extant evidence (per se) that Paul's immediate predecessors ever took such an oath.

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

Quote

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;

To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.

You know, that's interesting. Traditional Catholics insist that all popes up to (and possibly including) Paul VI took a so-called Papal Coronation Oath. There is, however, no extant evidence (per se) that Paul's immediate predecessors ever took such an oath.

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;"

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;"

HELLO!

Yep, personally, I'd have to admit that looks as if it has been violated post-vatican II.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Here's the Papal Oath of Pope St Agatho (VIIth Century). There's very little in it that an Orthodox Christian would find objectionable.

I can't speak for any Orthodox Christians, but I for one found the triumphalism/ultramontism of the following paragraph to be objectionable:

Quote

To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;